Orly is incensed at the duplicity of defendants' opposition. Incensed, I tellz ya.Plaintiffs specifically argued that Rule 60 motion should be granted under Rule 60b(2) and (6)Plaintiffs conveniently twisted the pleading and claimed that the motion is filed under rule 60b(2) and therefore it is untimely. However time limitation is only under rule 60b1,2 and 3.Think about it.

Plaintiffs conveniently twisted the pleading and claimed that the motion is filed under rule 60b(2) and therefore it is untimely. However time limitation is only under rule 60 bl,2 and 3. There is no time limitation on Rule 60b(6).I am guessing this is wrong, right? What is she TRYING to say here? (Since IANAL http://www.sheknows.com/graphics/emoticons/blabla.gif)

Edit: Okay, I found this on my own: Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.[tab=30](1-3: Fraud, new info, mistake) So she is being ridiculous as usual? [-X Can't she read? Not even being a lawyer, I found this one, FCOL. It's a no-brainer. Why won't they sanction this witch for wasting valuable Court resources, for being unprofessional? I do not understand!

Orly is incensed at the duplicity of defendants' opposition. Incensed, I tellz ya.Plaintiffs specifically argued that Rule 60 motion should be granted under Rule 60b(2) and (6)Plaintiffs conveniently twisted the pleading and claimed that the motion is filed under rule 60b(2) and therefore it is untimely. However time limitation is only under rule 60b1,2 and 3.[highlight]Think about it[/highlight].I can't. Vertigo makes me throw up.

[highlight]This court did not give the same consideration, did not grant the same due process and equal protection to Plaintiffs who challenged Obama, as it gave to the plaintiffs, whose action would indirectly benefit Obama.[/highlight] ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) I really don't get how she can be so stupid as to think that someone's actually going to fall for this crap that what Arpio came up with is (1) new, (b) evidence or (c) "proves" anything. I think she believes she's being clever and all that by finding a backdoor way into the courts and that if she can scare the judges enough with her RICORICORICO threats and allegations of corruption, partisanship or abuse of discretion they'll overlook the fact that there's absolutely NOTHING of substance in her filing. I just pray that Judge Carter will FINALLY be pushed far enough that he'll knock a home run ball right through her skull - though it'd be purely cosmetic damage since there's nothing in there to actually damage.... (NADT!) It's such an embarrassment that this cretin wants to call herself an "American."Blech.

Orly finally explains how under 60(b)6 her SAC of :turd: should allowed to be filed.It serves justice for the court to review the evidence provided and grant the leave of court to file the Second Amended Complaint. =)) =)) =)) =))

REFUSAL TO GRANT A LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WILL REPRESENT A VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER A COLOR OF AUTHORITYCuz... none of the defendants have those rights. ](*,) In fact, only birthers have those rights... and more particularly only Orly Taitz has any constitutional rights such as free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from being bombarded with frivolous baseless lawsuits and the like. #-o

REFUSAL TO GRANT A LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WILL REPRESENT A VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER A COLOR OF COLORED IN AUTHORITYFIFH. bd

Is it EVER possible to interpret that clause she is quoting re: timing, that only 1), 2), and 3) are time-limited to a year, but 6) is not? I see how if you were inexperienced, you might read the paragraph that way, but I would be appalled if the law worked that way -- anyone could deem something "justified," and litigate to reopen a dead, dead, dead civil matter? Can you imagine how Defendants would feel if cases were never dead, cuz justice had to be served. Differently. And all over again!

Is it EVER possible to interpret that clause she is quoting re: timing, that only 1), 2), and 3) are time-limited to a year, but 6) is not? I see how if you were inexperienced, you might read the paragraph that way, but I would be appalled if the law worked that way -- anyone could deem something "justified," and litigate to reopen a dead, dead, dead civil matter? Can you imagine how Defendants would feel if cases were never dead, cuz justice had to be served. Differently. And all over again!The law is that way. 6) allows for extraordinary cases where it would be a great injustice to time-bar the motion.But Taitz relies pretty much exclusively on her "new evidence" and makes no legal argument for 6).Brunt toast.

The law is that way. 6) allows for extraordinary cases where it would be a great injustice to time-bar the motion."Extraordinary" also does mean nothing short of extraordinary. I think someone could go a lifetime of practice without seeing a motion granted under 6).

"Extraordinary" also does mean nothing short of extraordinary. I think someone could go a lifetime of practice without seeing a motion granted under 6).Agreed. You need something like a decedent who's willing to testify that he's not as dead as the court ruled he was.

You need something like a decedent who's willing to testify that he's not as dead as the court ruled he was.Like this?http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8437/7883 ... bc8a_o.jpg[tab=30]http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying.gif Thanks all of you for explaining. My head just spins with this stuff. When I think that I was admitted to law school and didn't go, I realize it was the smartest move I accidently ever made. (Plus, UCLA Bus School had cuter boys that the Law School.)Ok, I get that "he's" not dead yet and he is even still standing, but does he magically now have standing?